Opinion
D.D. No. 80-19
Decided December 19, 1984.
Attorneys at law — Petition for reinstatement from indefinite suspension — Petition granted, when.
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Bar.
This cause arises by virtue of a petition for reinstatement to the practice of law filed by Melvin J. Stinchfield, a.k.a. Mike J. Stinchfield.
Petitioner, a sixty-two year old man, was admitted to the Ohio Bar in 1962. Prior to that time, he served in World War II and then received his undergraduate degree in 1948. Petitioner was called to active duty by the Air Force in 1949, where he served until he retired with a service connected disability in 1959. While in the Air Force, petitioner attained his master's degree in industrial administration.
Petitioner practiced law from 1962 to 1978. In 1977, petitioner suffered from three forms of arthritis and underwent two cataract operations. These physical disabilities rendered him bedfast from December 1977 until April or May 1978. Petitioner closed his law office in January 1978. In 1981, this court indefinitely suspended petitioner from the practice of law in Ohio for violating DR 6-101(A)(3) and Gov. R. V and VII. Dayton Bar Assn. v. Stinchfield (1981), 65 Ohio St.2d 130 [19 O.O.3d 319]. The board of commissioners found at that time that petitioner's "* * * emotional illness, admitted alcoholism and poor health * * * [had] created a situation where he * * * [could] not properly resolve legal matters entrusted to him."
DR 6-101 states in pertinent part:
"(A) A lawyer shall not:
"* * *
"(3) Neglect a legal matter entrusted to him."
Gov. R. V(4) stated in pertinent part:
"* * * No such attorney and counselor at law or judge shall neglect or refuse so to assist in any such investigation or to so testify. * * *"
Gov. R. VIII(2)(A) stated:
"The unauthorized practice of law is the rendering of legal services for others by anyone not registered under Rule VII of the Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio."
Since his suspension, petitioner has indicated the desire to resume the practice of law. He has further demonstrated a willingness to maintain a working knowledge of Ohio's current legal developments. To this end, petitioner has purchased and read "update" volumes on domestic relations, bankruptcy and negligence. He has attended criminal trials and read continuing legal education publications as well as current Ohio cases. Petitioner stated that he spends three to four hours, one or two days a week, maintaining his legal knowledge. When cross-examined by counsel for the Dayton Bar Association at the hearing on reinstatement before the board, petitioner demonstrated some familiarity with domestic relations and criminal law, the areas in which he intends to practice.
Mr. Thomas A. Schaffer, for petitioner.
Messrs. Porter, Wright, Morris Arthur, Mr. Robert P. Bartlett, Jr., and Mr. Chester E. Finn, for Dayton Bar Association.
Upon a full review of the matter, this court finds that petitioner possesses the necessary qualifications for readmission to the practice of law in Ohio. Petitioner's prior difficulties which resulted in his suspension were the result of his physical difficulties rather than any active misconduct. Petitioner's conscientious efforts to maintain his legal expertise have convinced this court that he possesses the mental, educational and moral qualifications required for readmission to the practice of law.
Therefore, Melvin J. Stinchfield's petition for reinstatement is granted and his indefinite suspension is removed.
Judgment accordingly.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and J.P. CELEBREZZE, JJ., concur.